Update Ticket Custom Field Value

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent. The description adds the PUT method, explains how to resolve the field ID, requires that the value type match the field's data_type, and mentions that null clears the value. It does not cover error behavior or permissions, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar somewhat.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the endpoint and purpose, the second packs ID resolution, type requirements, and null-clearing behavior. It is efficient and contains no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers essential invocation details: endpoint, field ID source, value types, and clearing. The schema fills parameter descriptions. The only clear gap is the ambiguous dual-ID situation (id vs definition_id), which could confuse an agent, but overall the description is sufficient for correct use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all parameters. The description essentially repeats the schema's explanations for 'id' and 'value' and does not add new meaning. It also fails to clarify why both 'id' and 'definition_id' are required and how they relate, which is a notable gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('the value of a single custom field on a ticket'), and includes the exact endpoint. The phrase 'a single custom field' distinguishes it from the sibling tool gorgias_update_ticket_fields, which implies bulk updates.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for updating one custom field value on a ticket, and provides field type matching guidelines. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of related tools like gorgias_update_ticket_fields or gorgias_update_customer_field_value, and it gives no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.